May 1986, Revised July 1996
Training Information Series
TI-3, SOURCE TESTS & EVALUATION


Argentia, Newfoundland / Bethune, et al  Case
February 10, 1951 

FRAN RIDGE:
After re-opening the case in January 2009, and based on the evidence compiled since that time, I find that this incident is unexplained. What finally convinced me was the removal of two major stumbling blocks to the credibility of the incident, Commander Bethune's reliability, falsely based on guilt-by-association with Steven Greer, AND the often-reported presence of the Moon during UFO sightings, this one in particular. Bethune's credibility has now been confirmed by Robert Durant and the fact that four other pilots and navigators (plus other passengers) also reported the sighting, makes it clear that the simplest explanation is that an unknown object was sighted low and ahead of the plane (then an indefinite source), approached the aircraft (then became circuler), reversed it course and zoomed over the horizon just as described. The apparent size, phase, and location of the Moon was noted by some of the witnesses and was simply not capable of fooling this number of seasoned pilots and navigators. The reports filed with the Air Force were mainly short witness statements and not detailed Form 164-like questionaires as used in many previous year's BB reports. Durant's investigation also shows that Bethune, although beginning to suffer from dimentia or altheimer's when interrogated by him, was non-the-less reliable and not fabricating anything and attested to the fact that detailed reports should have been filed, and that there were several different aircraft compasses that were reacting during this close encounter. This was not an aircraft, balloon or missile (let alone a fixed structure), but a night close encounter (diameter est at 400') with multiple exceptional witnesses, highly strange suggesting intelligent guidance.

DON LEDGER:

Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 01:50:07 -0300
As Bob Durant said (in his report) it seems silly that all of these pilot, navigator and engineer resources aboard this one airplane could not identify this object as the Moon considering a celestial fix [not the Moon] was taken not long before. There are too many loose ends to the Lunar theory. The position isn't exact, the direction isn't exact, the wind direction with winds reported at between 60 and 70 knots - but from what direction - could have had the aircraft crabbing with the nose as much as 20 degrees away from the track line. Ergo the Moon setting can't be determined from the aircraft's position. The movenments of this object as reported by the witnesses pretty much precludes the Moon. The Moon from that position would have the cresent on the side in a vertical position. It would have been narrow and insignificant in the sky. Any mistaking of the Auror Borealis as an explanation for the event, to my mind is absurd, like mistaking a pillow for a bobby-pin.


SOURCE TEST

This form, attached to the final report itself, is a checklist of what natural objects were considered in an effort to identify the stimulus for the reported UFO. The reasons for rejecting or suspecting the possible stimulus, clearly noted. The not applicable items are left blank.

NATURAL SOURCE:
1. ORGANIC SOURCE, TERRESTRIAL ( ) a. Animal ( ) b. Bird, Reptile ( ) c. Insect ( ) d. By-Product (spider webs, seeds)

2. INORGANIC SOURCE, TERRESTRIAL ( ) a. Adverse Weather (whirlwind) ( ) b. Atmospheric (clouds, moondogs) ( ) c. Lightning (ball, bolt, heat) ( ) d. Swamp Gas ( ) e. Other (debris, mirage)

3. INORGANIC SOURCE, TRANSTERRESTRIAL ( ) a. Bolides ( ) b. Meteorites/Meteors

4. INORGANIC SOURCE, EXTRATERRESTRIAL ( ) a. Comets ( ) b. Moon ( ) c. Planet(s) ( ) d. Star(s) ( ) e. Sun

5. OTHER (explain)


MAN-MADE SOURCE:
1. AIRCRAFT ( ) a. Advertizing ( ) b. Commercial, Military, Private ( ) c. Other (blimp, experimental, helicopter)

2. BALLOON ( ) a. Hot Air ( ) b. Weather, Test, Etc. ( ) c. Other (prank, toy, etc.)

3. FIXED STRUCTURES ( ) a. Buildings ( ) b. Lights (ground, search, etc.) ( ) c. Towers (water, power line, radio)

4. HOAX ( ) a. On Witness ( ) b. By Witness

5. MISSILE ( ) a. Chemical (cloud, smoke, etc.) ( ) b. Cruise-type ( ) c. Launch

6. SATELLITE ( ) a. Orbiting (high-altitude) ( ) b. Re-Entry (similar to meteor)

7. OTHER (explain)


SIGHTING EVALUATION

The result of the overall analysis of the data collected by the field investigator.
1. Berliner Strangeness Scale:
(  )  0 - Identified as a known object/phenomenon or a report lacking clear UFO content
(  )  1 - Night light with no apparent object
(  )  2 - Night object
(  )  3 - Daylight object seen at a distance
(  )  4 - Night Close Encounter of the First Kind (within 500')
(  )  5 - Daylight CE-1
(  )  6 - Ambiguous CE-2 (trace, capable of being understood in more than one way)
(  )  7 - Unambiguous CE-2 (apparently only one explanation)
(  )  8 - CE-3 (occupants on or near craft)
(  )  9 - CE-3 (occupant reaction to witness)
(  ) 10- CE-3 (with meaningful communication)

2. Berliner Credibility Scale:
(  )  0 - Witness(es) lacking believability
(  )  1 - Single average witness
(  )  2 - Multiple average witness
(  )  3 - Single exceptional witness
(  )  4 - Multiple Exceptional Witnesse
(  )  5 - Radar/visual observation
(  )  6 - Still photo(s) by amateur
(  )  7 - Still photo(s) by professional
(  )  8 - Movie/video by amateur
(  )  9 - Movie/video by professional
(  ) 10- Live television

3. Speiser Strangeness Factor:
(  )  S1 - Explainable or explained
(  )  S2 - Probably explainable with more data
(  )  S3 - Possibly explainable, but with elements of strangeness
(  )  S4 - Strange; does not conform to known principles
(  )  S5 - Highly strange: suggests intelligent guidance

4. Speiser Probability Factor:
(  )  P1 - Not credible or sound
(  )  P2 - Unreliable witness; possible hoax
(  )  P3 - Somewhat credible or indeterminate
(  )  P4 - Credible and sound
(  )  P5 - Highly credible, leaving almost no doubt

(  ) Great Significance
(  ) Significant
(  ) Limited Merit
(  ) Borderline